Ulysse Sabbagh

Noah Berlatsky, reporting for Quartz: 

‘Bad words,’ Adams writes, ‘are unexpectedly useful in fostering human relations because they carry risk….We like to get away with things and sometimes we do so with like-minded people.’

Fuck yeah! 

Amar Toor for The Verge: 

A startup that uses drones to deliver medicine and blood to remote areas of Rwanda is launching a similar program in the US. California-based Zipline will bring its drone delivery program to rural and remote communities in Maryland, Nevada, and Washington, including some Native American reservations. Zipline will announce its expansion at a White House workshop on unpiloted aerial vehicles (UAVs) Tuesday morning.

Amar Toor for The Verge: 

A startup that uses drones to deliver medicine and blood to remote areas of Rwanda is launching a similar program in the US. California-based Zipline will bring its drone delivery program to rural and remote communities in Maryland, Nevada, and Washington, including some Native American reservations. Zipline will announce its expansion at a White House workshop on unpiloted aerial vehicles (UAVs) Tuesday morning.

In Scotland Yard, London's police headquarters, there is a unit comprised of people who can recognise faces very, very well. 

Xan Rice for the New Statesman — it's a long read but it's very interesting: 

That August, the London riots broke out. Met officers trawled through tens of thousands of hours of CCTV footage, identifying 609 suspects responsible for looting, arson and other criminal acts. One officer, PC Gary Collins, made 180 identifications, including that of one of the most high-profile suspects, who had thrown petrol bombs at police and set cars on fire. During the riots, the man covered his mouth and nose with a bandana and pulled a beanie low over his forehead. Collins recognised him as a criminal whom he had last seen several years earlier. The man was convicted and sentenced to six years in prison.

In Scotland Yard, London's police headquarters, there is a unit comprised of people who can recognise faces very, very well. 

Xan Rice for the New Statesman — it's a long read but it's very interesting: 

That August, the London riots broke out. Met officers trawled through tens of thousands of hours of CCTV footage, identifying 609 suspects responsible for looting, arson and other criminal acts. One officer, PC Gary Collins, made 180 identifications, including that of one of the most high-profile suspects, who had thrown petrol bombs at police and set cars on fire. During the riots, the man covered his mouth and nose with a bandana and pulled a beanie low over his forehead. Collins recognised him as a criminal whom he had last seen several years earlier. The man was convicted and sentenced to six years in prison.

 From Jason Fried, a cofounder of Basecamp, who met Clayton Christensen, of the Innovator's Dilemma fame:

You’ve probably heard it said that someone can’t be taught until they’re ready to learn. I’ve heard it said that way too. It makes sense, and my experience tells me it’s mostly true. Why though? Why can’t someone be taught until they’re ready to learn?

Clay explained it in a way that I’ve never heard before and I’ll never forget again. Paraphrased slightly, he said:

‘Questions are places in your mind where answers fit. If you haven’t asked the question, the answer has nowhere to go. It hits your mind and bounces right off. You have to ask the question — you have to want to know — in order to open up the space for the answer to fit.’

 From Jason Fried, a cofounder of Basecamp, who met Clayton Christensen, of the Innovator's Dilemma fame:

You’ve probably heard it said that someone can’t be taught until they’re ready to learn. I’ve heard it said that way too. It makes sense, and my experience tells me it’s mostly true. Why though? Why can’t someone be taught until they’re ready to learn?

Clay explained it in a way that I’ve never heard before and I’ll never forget again. Paraphrased slightly, he said:

‘Questions are places in your mind where answers fit. If you haven’t asked the question, the answer has nowhere to go. It hits your mind and bounces right off. You have to ask the question — you have to want to know — in order to open up the space for the answer to fit.’

I give you, the typing indicator. 

Got it from ParisLemon.

www.youtube.com/watch

She talks about the — supposedly existentialist — rowdy, young Parisian crowd in love with jazz, she sums up Sartrean existentialism and explains her political and ideological positions. Very interesting.

www.youtube.com/watch

She talks about the — supposedly existentialist — rowdy, young Parisian crowd in love with jazz, she sums up Sartrean existentialism and explains her political and ideological positions. Very interesting.

Playful and informative!

Playful and informative!

Delphi Automotive Plc, the vehicle-electronics supplier that last year conducted the first coast-to-coast U.S. demonstration of a self-driving car, will begin testing autonomous autos in Singapore this year that may lead to robot taxis by the end of the decade.

So we do live in a world where driverless cars will drive us — mere mortals (i.e not Silicon Valley people) — around. Cool!

Read more over at Bloomberg.

Delphi Automotive Plc, the vehicle-electronics supplier that last year conducted the first coast-to-coast U.S. demonstration of a self-driving car, will begin testing autonomous autos in Singapore this year that may lead to robot taxis by the end of the decade.

So we do live in a world where driverless cars will drive us — mere mortals (i.e not Silicon Valley people) — around. Cool!

Read more over at Bloomberg.

There is a problem with modern scientific findings and it is that researchers can't replicate most discoveries. 

From Nautilus:

A group of researchers at Amgen, an American pharmaceutical company, attempted to replicate 53 landmark cancer discoveries in close collaboration with the authors. Many of these papers were published in high-impact journals and came from prestigious academic institutions. To the surprise of everyone involved, they were able to replicate only six of those papers—approximately 11 percent.

Why do I say modern? The quantity of scientific papers keeps increasing. And scientists, who crave recognition, want to differentiate and shine by themselves. 

Says Robert Merton, a well-known sociologist: 

The well-recognized sociologist Robert Merton has pointed out that scientists’ need for recognition may stem from their need to be assured that what they know is worth knowing, and that they are capable of original thought. In this view, recognition is necessary for intellectual confidence.

Unfortunately, recognition is not derived from the quality of the work: 

The inconvenient truth is that scientists can achieve fame and advance their careers through accomplishments that do not prioritize the quality of their work. If recognition is not based on quality, then scientists will not modify their behaviors to select for it. In the culture of modern science, it is better to be wrong than to be second.

This does not mean that quality is completely neglected. The Nobel Prize—the most coveted form of recognition—is associated with scientific discoveries of the highest caliber. But for the tens of thousands of scientists fighting over shrinking research budgets, winning less visible awards becomes an obsession, needed for promotions and grants.

Woops. What will the impact of this trend be in 10 years? 

There is a problem with modern scientific findings and it is that researchers can't replicate most discoveries. 

From Nautilus:

A group of researchers at Amgen, an American pharmaceutical company, attempted to replicate 53 landmark cancer discoveries in close collaboration with the authors. Many of these papers were published in high-impact journals and came from prestigious academic institutions. To the surprise of everyone involved, they were able to replicate only six of those papers—approximately 11 percent.

Why do I say modern? The quantity of scientific papers keeps increasing. And scientists, who crave recognition, want to differentiate and shine by themselves. 

Says Robert Merton, a well-known sociologist: 

The well-recognized sociologist Robert Merton has pointed out that scientists’ need for recognition may stem from their need to be assured that what they know is worth knowing, and that they are capable of original thought. In this view, recognition is necessary for intellectual confidence.

Unfortunately, recognition is not derived from the quality of the work: 

The inconvenient truth is that scientists can achieve fame and advance their careers through accomplishments that do not prioritize the quality of their work. If recognition is not based on quality, then scientists will not modify their behaviors to select for it. In the culture of modern science, it is better to be wrong than to be second.

This does not mean that quality is completely neglected. The Nobel Prize—the most coveted form of recognition—is associated with scientific discoveries of the highest caliber. But for the tens of thousands of scientists fighting over shrinking research budgets, winning less visible awards becomes an obsession, needed for promotions and grants.

Woops. What will the impact of this trend be in 10 years? 

 Collective wisdom tells us to set goals and reach them.

But what happens then? And what if such a dogmatic view can lead to counterproductive results? And what if, because of these goals, we miss out on auxiliary discoveries that may turn out to be better? 

Here's an example, from Kottke:

One illuminating example of the problem concerns the American automobile behemoth General Motors. The turn of the millennium found GM in a serious predicament, losing customers and profits to more nimble, primarily Japanese, competitors. As the Boston Globe reported, executives at GM's headquarters in Detroit came up with a goal, crystallized in a number: 29. Twenty-nine, the company announced amid much media fanfare, was the percentage of the American car market that it would recapture, reasserting its old dominance. Twenty-nine was also the number displayed upon small gold lapel pins, worn by senior figures at GM to demonstrate their commitment to the plan. At corporate gatherings, and in internal GM documents, twenty-nine was the target drummed into everyone from salespeople to engineers to public-relations officers.

Yet the plan not only failed to work-it made things worse. Obsessed with winning back market share, GM spent its dwindling finances on money-off schemes and clever advertising, trying to lure drivers into purchasing its unpopular cars, rather than investing in the more speculative and open-ended-and thus more uncertain-research that might have resulted in more innovative and more popular vehicles.

Be sure to read Nathan Bashaw's Hardbound story on goals. He tells the tale of Ken Stanley, a guy who wanted to create software that evolves random images into meaningful pictures — moving from a weird dot to something that'd look like an eye, for instance.

The software, Picbreeder, never did what Ken wanted it to do, so he opened Picbreeder to the public and saw that humans evolved images in a much smarter way. 

One day, he started with a picture that looked like an alien and it finally became a car (you'll understand what I say if you read the Hardbound story linked above).  

He realised then that great discoveries are possible but only if we abandon the need to control what they will be. 

It's something that you may have thought of intuitively. It keeps happening with scientific discoveries, time and time again (the telephone, for instance).

 Collective wisdom tells us to set goals and reach them.

But what happens then? And what if such a dogmatic view can lead to counterproductive results? And what if, because of these goals, we miss out on auxiliary discoveries that may turn out to be better? 

Here's an example, from Kottke:

One illuminating example of the problem concerns the American automobile behemoth General Motors. The turn of the millennium found GM in a serious predicament, losing customers and profits to more nimble, primarily Japanese, competitors. As the Boston Globe reported, executives at GM's headquarters in Detroit came up with a goal, crystallized in a number: 29. Twenty-nine, the company announced amid much media fanfare, was the percentage of the American car market that it would recapture, reasserting its old dominance. Twenty-nine was also the number displayed upon small gold lapel pins, worn by senior figures at GM to demonstrate their commitment to the plan. At corporate gatherings, and in internal GM documents, twenty-nine was the target drummed into everyone from salespeople to engineers to public-relations officers.

Yet the plan not only failed to work-it made things worse. Obsessed with winning back market share, GM spent its dwindling finances on money-off schemes and clever advertising, trying to lure drivers into purchasing its unpopular cars, rather than investing in the more speculative and open-ended-and thus more uncertain-research that might have resulted in more innovative and more popular vehicles.

Be sure to read Nathan Bashaw's Hardbound story on goals. He tells the tale of Ken Stanley, a guy who wanted to create software that evolves random images into meaningful pictures — moving from a weird dot to something that'd look like an eye, for instance.

The software, Picbreeder, never did what Ken wanted it to do, so he opened Picbreeder to the public and saw that humans evolved images in a much smarter way. 

One day, he started with a picture that looked like an alien and it finally became a car (you'll understand what I say if you read the Hardbound story linked above).  

He realised then that great discoveries are possible but only if we abandon the need to control what they will be. 

It's something that you may have thought of intuitively. It keeps happening with scientific discoveries, time and time again (the telephone, for instance).

Robin Yassin-Kassab, reporting for The National: 

Daraya, a suburb west of Damascus now suffering its fourth year under starvation siege, is run by a council. Its 120 members select executives by vote every six months. The council head is chosen by public election. The council runs schools, a hospital,and a public kitchen, and manages urban agricultural production. Its office supervises the Free Syrian Army militias defending the town. Amid constant bombardment, Daraya’s citizen journalists produce a newspaper, Enab Baladi, which promotes non-violent resistance. In a country once known as a 'kingdom of silence', there are more than 60 independent newspapers and many free radio stations."

And: 

Towns could legislate locally according to their demographic and cultural composition and mood. The alternative to enhanced local control is new borders, new ethnic cleanings, new wars. At the very least, the councils deserve political recognition by the United States and others. Council members should be a key presence on the opposition’s negotiating team at any talks.

Localism as an answer to the many woes brought upon by globalisation is not such a far-fetched idea. Mix this with Yaneer Bar-Yam's idea on teamwork and we have something interesting.